May 15, 2008

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

For not having much of a reputation as a speech maker that is a brilliant piece of rethoric. Everyone thinks it is about Obama. But when Obama responds to it he is admitting the underlying premise of the statement which is that he wants to engage in useless and demeaning negotiations with murderers. It is classic, after you stopped beating your wife kind of stuff.

For not having much of a reputation as a speech maker that is a brilliant piece of rethoric. Everyone thinks it is about Obama. But when Obama responds to it he is admitting the underlying premise of the statement which is that he wants to engage in useless and demeaning negotiations with murderers. It is classic, after you stopped beating your wife kind of stuff.

The NYT makes not even a nominal attempt to control its sneering, but the reason that Bush "invoked the emotionally volatile imagery of World War II" is because WWII was indeed horrible, and a direct result of the world's appeasement of Hitler until it was much too late.

Too bad Bush didn't talk like this to the American people for the last five years; we might be further along in Iraq and less enervated at home.

White House press secretary Dana Perino flatly rejected the idea that the Knesset remark was aimed in any way at Obama. The remark is fairly typical for Bush speeches, and Gordon Johndroe, a national security spokesman for the president, said the president was referring to "a wide range of people who have talked to or suggested we talk to Hamas, Hezbollah or their state sponsors" over a long period of time.

One such person most recently was former President Carter, who held talks with Hamas leaders, prompting criticism from Bush officials.

Still, even as the White House said Bush meant no dig at the Democrat, Perino couldn't resist the opportunity to get in a small one.

"I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case," she said.

Brilliant. Obama's campaign and the NY Times took the bait and made this about Obama, thus accepting the criticism as basically true.

Man, I wish the White House would have been this good about talking through the whole Iraq war all along. They're good at it when they decide to say something.

Obama's campaign and the NY Times took the bait and made this about Obama, thus accepting the criticism as basically true.

This is exactly correct. Democrats in their stupidity to be anti-bush all the time need to have an opposing position to Bush on every issue. This is why Democrats picked an appeaser as their nominee. Israel is one general election away from being thrown under the bus.

Not only is Obama an appeaser, he reconstructs history to claim that prior democrats were appeasers. Incredibly Obama claims that FDR negotiated with our enemies without precondition.

Apropos the internets and Bush...does he fail by mere fact that he used the "argument ad-hitlerum" Godwin's Law anyone? I make a mental note of anyone who uses a world war II analogy to make a point; the mental note being that it is as far back into history that someone ever seriously studied. As if we never had a history of negotiations with the Barbary states even...

Why Obama? Why not Carter, who goes about hugging Hamas and Hezbollah, like respected old friends?

Or indeed, the New York Times themselves?

Here is what even his detractors know is an amazing piece of rhetoric. Really one of his best efforts yet (he's at his absolute best in States of the Union addresses, and talking of the Middle East). If Senator Obama had given it, the NYT would be falling over first in praise of its wording, then of how bold and challenging it is.

But for Bush, it's just a sitting duck president jealously casting aspersions on his younger, would-be successor.

I know it's the NYT. I know it's about Israel.

But every time you reference Israel, you don't have to think they're talking about the Messiah.

Everyone thinks it is about Obama. But when Obama responds to it he is admitting the underlying premise of the statement which is that he wants to engage in useless and demeaning negotiations with murderers.

Incredible.

When someone is clearly referring to you, because you clash and they dislike you, moreover everyone knows it; you do NOT defend yourself directly and vigourously. The inference then is that what the person said is true!!

That's a rookie mistake and a half.

The half comes from the fact that Camp Obama was obviously called up by the NYT reporter writing the story and told,

"President Bush just made a speech critising Senator Obama's Middle East stance, do you have a response?"

And they took the bait. Ech, more than anything I hate amateurs.

If people hated Bush for that self-same perception that he wasn't qualified in terms of experience, I don't see why they should give a pass to Obama.

UWS guy--Washington's administration negotiated with the Barbary pirates (actually, they paid tribute). Following the war of 1812, Preble's shelled all the capitals of the Barbary coast, collected tribue and freed slaves. You might recall this line in the Marine Hymn: from the shores of Tripoli.

In short, Barbary pirates make the case for intervention rather than refute it.

Actions speaks louder and far more unequivocally than words. Presently the actions are saying, "Brace yourself Iran, we intend to thoroughly kick your ass." Have a look at a map and get out your colored pencils. We're preparing the whole area with bases, including Iraq, Oman, Afghanistan, and yes even Pakistan; and the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, Gulf of Oman with carriers. Carriers, as you know each consist of their own entire fleets. And who knows where our missile launching submarines are lurking? Feeling a little surrounded, Iran? You should be. Think a little confab will ease tensions?

I'm not saying the Barbary Pirate stuff wouldn't make a good hawkish argument. All I'm saying is that Hitlerum arguments are like dead metaphors that Orwell wrote about in his "politics and the English Language". Those arguments are like tea leaves choking the sink drain of precise thought.

I'm sure Romans loved making arguments ad-Hannibal and how awful the Carthaginians were, but at some point people need to stop taking the intellectually lazy and easy way out and make some fresh analogies.

Apropos the internets and Bush...does he fail by mere fact that he used the "argument ad-hitlerum" Godwin's Law anyone?

Godwin's Law doesn't apply when you're making a direct reference to Nazis/Hitler. It applies when Nazis/Hitler are used in an inappropriate context, e.g., Hitler killed six million people, Bush imprisoned 200 jihadis, thus Bush is Hitler.

People here greatly underestimate the diplomatic skills of this perfect, gentle knight. The Rev Wright, for example, thought that white people had created hypertension and humidity to afflict the black community until by gentle reasoning Obama led him to his present moderate position. Chavez will not smell sulphur in the presence of this man.

'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.'

Now, I don't know what Sen. Borah intended to say to Hitler, and I'm far too lazy to look him up and try and divine the likely gist from his stances.

Imagine: "If you start another war in Europe, the United States will rapidly join in against you.

Here's a rundown of our total industrial production capacity, compared that that of Germany.

And this time we won't stop until our tanks are in Berlin."

Such a speech, combined with signals from Roosevelt that no shit, we mean it, might well have acted to contain the Nazis until they collapsed under their own weight. Or it might not have, of course - but it should be remembered that "talk" need not mean "accomodation", and it can (and often should, when dealing with despots) mean "threats, and/or promises of retribution".

Talk is cheap, and relying on talk alone is ineffective. Talk backed up with Teddy Roosevelt's Big Stick is another matter.

Godwin's Law merely states that any internet discussion, continued long enough, will include a comparison to Hitler/the Nazis. Nobody "wins" or "loses" by making such a reference. It's on the order of "an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters will type the works of Shakespeare."

The Euros who actually have bargaining power with Iran have been negotiating with them over nukes for what, 3 years now? Iran's response has been pretty much 'fuck off'. I figure negotiations will continue right around the time they detonate one over Tel Aviv. Or New York.

If you believe that the Iranians are not intent on building nuclear weapons then yes, I agree attacking them would be monumentally stupid. On the other hand, if that is their endgame, allowing nuclear weapons in the hands of the mullahs is about as monumentally stupid as you can get.

It seems awfully simplistic to me to see only two options: negotiations or use of force. I suggest there is a continum along the line between talking and war. Certainly Clausewitz recognized that in his book "on War." These sound bite discussions are trivial, and until you spin out some more detail, these hypotheticals will take you nowhere.

And what tanks would those have been? When Hitler invaded Poland, our 190,000 man, 7 division (6 infantry, 1 cavalry) army had 329 tanks, none of which sported armament more powerful than a .50 cal machine gun.

By comparison, the Germans had 100 infantry divisions, 6 armored and 2400 tanks. Even the Poles had 30 divisions.

Heh! Just as an aside, Boise has a high school named after him. I grew up about 20 miles from there and went to a different division school (1970s), so we never really competed against each other. However, their chant was well known throughout Treasure Valley: "We are (clap, clap) Bor-ah (clap, clap)! We are (c,c) Bor-ah (c,c)!" The other schools usually changed it to "You are (c,c) Bor-ing (c,c)! You are (c,c) Bor-ing (c,c)!"

Bob: referencing your political opponents with Neville Chamberlain is an argument ad-hitlerum...saying that it is not is quibbling over words.

Hoosierdaddy: I was in Austria before the out break of war in Kosovo; the Europeans were so fearful of a mass exodus of refugees that they begged the U.S. to intervene based upon their NATO obligations.

Ironically, western europe at the time was afraid to be inundated with muslims fleeing fmr. Yugo.

The Republican Party (and the country as a whole) had a strong isolationist streak until the start of WWII as I recall. Senator Borah was just more vocal about it. Look at the shennanigans FDR had to pull to get around the Congress prior to December 7.

I don't understand (well, I think I do) why a statement that negotiating with terrorists and radicals doesn't work can be argued against by pointing out when Republicans negotiated with terrorists and radicals.

Are we supposed to assume that any time a Republican did something that it *worked*?

That's the only way the argument makes sense, after all... one person says "History shows us that this doesn't work" and proving that wrong only makes sense by pointing out when it *did* work.

So *obviously* whenever Republicans negotiate with terrorists and radicals they are successful!

I don't understand (well, I think I do) why a statement that negotiating with terrorists and radicals doesn't work can be argued against by pointing out when Republicans negotiated with terrorists and radicals.

Okay, you want examples of the Bush administration negotiating with terrorists and radicals and it actually working.

First of all remember you are constantly telling us what a rousing success the Surge has been. The main reason it has been is because we have negotiated with the same Sunnis we were fighting a few months ago.

Then you've got Libya giving up their WMD programs. And don't forget after all that posturing how we were never going to talk to North Korea, we did, and got them to dismantle their Pu reactor.

"...to hawks it's always 1939, every foreigner we don't like is a new Hitler, and preventive war is always the only solution. Bush and McCain truly are the ideological descendants of the folks who urged Eisenhower to go for "rollback" and who insisted that Ronald Reagan betrayed the true path when he sat down with Gorbachev for arms control talks."

We did have one. World War I was described as the 'war to end all wars.'

You can see how well that worked out.

Wars are conflicts between nations or groups of people who have ideological, religious, cultural or historical differences with each other. But since we know that forced conversion doesn't work, the use of force can only conclusively 'win' a war by killing everyone on the other side. Otherwise the people on the other side remain, and remain a threat.

At best, if you 'win' a war militarily without winning the supprt of the public then you buy say about twenty years of peace, and then the next generation will keep things going.

I suppose the moral of the story, then, Freder, is that we should keep Republicans in office because when they negotiate with the bad guys it works.

Huh?

I mean... my talking to *you* doesn't make you agree with me all of a sudden so why, really WHY do we think that talking to terrorists and radicals will make them agree with us?

It's just silly.

Now, keeping some sort of grudge so when our opponents want to come over we prevent it is just stupid and I've never argued that, per your example, we ought to take a hard-line with Sunni groups who want to change their minds.

Those I've argued with here and elsewhere who thought it was horrific that we'd simply forget that these people were shooting at and killing Americans were anti-war liberals.

I don't know what they actually thought we ought to do since the main idea among those who are particularly anti-war seems to be to take whatever position is the opposite without regard to any sort of over-all harmony of ideas.

As we're seeing here with no one at all actually disputing the facts of what Bush said but bringing up "You do it too!!" as if that is the most relevant possible thing.

But OF COURSE we, as a nation, talk to our enemies. But there is more than one definition of "talk" and when it comes from Jimmy Carter or Obama do you really think that it *doesn't* mean that they think a nice sit down to tea will show some terror supporter the error of his ways?

Oh Jimmy Carter is well loved and respected around the world. They think he's *fabulous* because he, and no one else, can go to Darfur and come away with nice things to say about the government there. Same with Hammas. Same with any number of murderous dictators who open their doors and hearts to the man, knowing that doing so will make them seem like good people.

When Obama says "talk" he means something other than the "talking" that we do now because he's presenting himself as the opposite of Bush. He's going to TALK, and our international problems will go away because if Bush only TALKED instead of loving guns so much we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.

Negotiating with Teheran and Syria will not work because it has not worked.

You could contend that Iran is winning and could soon get overconfident and misstep. Through its proxies, it now controls Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon.

Once either or both nations get nuclear weapons or enough hot stuff to make a dirty bomb, they won't use it. They won't test it. They will hand the weapon to a proxy who will use it. No one will be able to tell where the weapon came from.

Their goal is victory through intimidation by using as little force as possible. If I were the Iranians, the best target might be Saudi Arabia. (Remember that the Sauds have long oppressed the Shia in the Eastern oil-rich provinces.) Let al-Qaeda take the blame.

Whatever happens, US and Israeli policy could not be clearer. It's going to be uglier than a Chinese earthquake.

"...to hawks it's always 1939, every foreigner we don't like is a new Hitler, and preventive war is always the only solution. Bush and McCain truly are the ideological descendants of the folks who urged Eisenhower to go for "rollback" and who insisted that Ronald Reagan betrayed the true path when he sat down with Gorbachev for arms control talks."

For the doves:

Remilitarization..’he’s only kidding’.Reoccupation of the Ruhr..’it’s none of our business’Anschluss…’nothing to see here, move along’.Sudentenland….’peace in our time’August 1939…”Who want’s to die for Danzig?”

For some reason many commenters on this thread want to equate a President sitting down to talk to "dinner jacket" stooge with specifically-focused, low level discussions between functionaries. There's a world of difference between that and such discussions as our diplomats in Iraq have with Iranians, or Israel discussing (via Egypt) the release of a captured soldier with Hamas. Or even the careful diplomacy being done multi-laterally with North Korea (mostly a fig leaf for China to justify internally the need to put the pressure on their client) or what we did with Lybia (mostly, I believe, through UK and Germany.)

If you can't see the difference, are you generally obtuse or only when it comes to Obama and the Middle East? Obama, of all people, should try his diplomatic hand at negotiations with someone like Rev. Wright, before he graduates to dealing the Middle East.

Re: NATO and authorization on Iran

US Congress has voted to recognize Iranian Quads force as a terrorist organization (or soomething near to it) and we have plenty of evidence that they are involved in and actively sponsor terrorist cells in Iraq that kill Americans. Iran is testing missile technology capable of delivering future nukes to most of the NATO capitals in Europe (they haven't quite got Spain or Portugal covered yet.) Seems like we have more than enough justification to take whatever action is necessary in Iran. When and how, are the choices the President makes based on multiple factors.

Article 4 refers to the subjective view of one or more NATO members, not what "Hoosier Daddy" might think. "Threats to security" represents a loophole big enough for the QE2.

Article 4

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Oh I see. So there was an imminent threat that Serbia was going to invade a NATO member? I mean thats about as laughable as when the liberals berated Bush over Iraq being a threat to the United States.

Hoosierdaddy: I was in Austria before the out break of war in Kosovo; the Europeans were so fearful of a mass exodus of refugees that they begged the U.S. to intervene based upon their NATO obligations.

Really? Which Europeans? See not all Europeans are members of NATO. In fact, when you look at the map, the only NATO member remotely close to the action was Greece who by the way was vehemently opposed to NATO action. The other fascinating part about that is that the only countries who actually faced mass refugees were Macedonia and Albania. Like Austria, they weren't NATO members either.

Olmert then turned to Bush personally, saying "it is not customary in such events, where protocol plays such a big part ... but I want to tell you, man to man, father to father, family man to family man: In politics one gets to hear many statements, which are duly recorded and filed and then forgotten. [The welcome] you and your wife have received here today, is true and will not be forgotten. And not because it is written in the Knesset's protocols, but because it comes from my heart, from the heart of this house and from the heart of the people of Israel."

I guess "Speak softly but carry a big stick" is no longer good Republican policy.

Um... you DO know that "big stick" diplomacy called for the regular use of the military to protect US interests, right? It also called for the implied use of that military might as a threat in diplomacy. Which is why, under the administration of Teddy "Big Stick" Roosevelt, we invaded three countries "to protect US interests" -- Cuba, Panama, and the Dominican Republic?

If you think "speak softly and carry a big stick" meant "use more diplomacy", you REALLY need to crack a history book sometime. It meant almost exactly the opposite.

Seems to me people have to do a whole lot of projecting to believe the president had all of this laid out in advance so he could lay one on Obama while addressing the Knesset on Israel's 60th anniversary. What an absolutely self centered and asinine interpretation. If Obama and his bots are that touchy they are going to be for a very long 4 year administration.

Given the Israeli relationship with Palestinian militant factions, a more compelling interpretation is that message was meant 1) to bolster the Israeli approach to dealing with Palestinians and 2) play down any expectations for successful US peace initiatives and 3) tell them that the Bush administration was not going to negotiate with the terrorist factions like Hamas and Hezbollah.

To see it as some sort of a domestic slam against the chosen one, says one hell of a lot more about the self-absorbed outlook of Senator Obama and Obamabots. Get over yourselves. The world does not revolve around you as you assume.

Alpha--I wasnt aware that Cheney was still CEO--I am aware of Prescott Bush's dealings with nazi Germany--so please tell me exactly why thats important and how it affects President Bush 41 or President Bush 43. Some liberals threw a spoke invoking "no guilt by association" when the Obama-Wright thing broke; how is trying to link a grandfather long since dead any different? Try for a little consistency please--you will sound less foolish that you are.

Roger says: "Seems to me people have to do a whole lot of projecting to believe the president had all of this laid out in advance so he could lay one on Obama while addressing the Knesset on Israel's 60th anniversary. "

Well, I hope he didn't pull those comments out of his ass, though it sounds like he did. Typically Presidential statement before foreign legislatures are prepared in advance.

And, with Lieberman and McSame teeing off on the subject, it smells like the dank odor or Republican attacks to come.

Though it smells more and more like that: In a reference to Obama's declared willingness to meet with the leader of Iran, McCain said:

"I think [it] is an unacceptable position, and shows that Senator Obama does not have the knowledge, the experience, the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation's security."

AlphaLiberal - you do realize that until September 1st 1939 Nazi Germany had not technically invaded another country? And you are right that Iran's military budget is much smaller than ours. Of course 50% of ours go for pay, 10% to health care, and they don't need to plan on more than a one-way trip. Iran won't be paying any $'s to transport their troops as this sit on the Gulf.

Now, unlike Germany, they appear to be destined to get themselves the bomb. Some consider that a "game changer". That may not concern you but my sense is we're one shipping container away from more US causalties than WWII.

The other fascinating part about that is that the only countries who actually faced mass refugees were Macedonia and Albania. Like Austria, they weren't NATO members either.

You don't think conflict in the Balkans could pull in the rest of Europe? You might recall it happened in 1914. Plus proximity is not the prime criterion for absorbing refugees. When Hungary quit preventing Easterners from crossing the Austrian border, refugees came from all over Communist Europe. Austria had to build resettlement camps to hold people from as far away as Poland and the Baltic countries. But they were just passing through; they mainly got resettled in Germany and points as far West as the UK.

Alpha--as usual its been fun sharing opinions with you (seriously). Regretably wont be back on line for about 10 days. Duty calls elsewhere. Have a great evening; I am sure some of my wingnut colleagues will be willing to spar withi you.

Cheney does not cash checks from them. His blind trust which he does not control cashes checks from them.

Now how about Joseph Kennedy and his support for Hitler. Can we lay that one onto Teddy? After all he was alive while that was going on unlike Bush.

And before you play the Saudi card, remember that the dealings with the Saudis were brokered by Averell Harriman. Remember Averell Harriman? Democratic governor of New York and Democratic candidate for president. His wife was the banker for the Clintons when they were running for the presidency and while they were in office. She was also the banker for a lot of the candidates for the senate and the house of representatives. Just be careful in following up the money she spent for them and where she got it.

Seems to me people have to do a whole lot of projecting to believe the president had all of this laid out in advance so he could lay one on Obama while addressing the Knesset on Israel's 60th anniversary.

all of what laid out? he made a speech, it was probably written in the last week, he's clearly taking a shot at obama, and yes, its crass to insert domestic political considerations into such an address.

no surprise though given this crew.

also, all of you "omg its 1939" types are rich, considering what the GOP was doing in the 1980's wrt Saddam and Iran. far from mere negotiating, they were giving/selling weapons. if a dem administration had done either, you would want the whole party strung up for treason.

"Why don't those damned oil companies fly their own flags on their personal property- maybe a flag with a gas pump on it." -- Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, awarded Congressional Medal of Honor twice.

General Smedley Butler described himself as a "military isolationist" who believed "in having all sorts of friendly contacts and commercial contacts with all other nations on earth," but in keeping military forces "within our own boundaries." This was in opposition to a "very, very small minority that think we should police the world, that we should guard every American wherever he might be, and every dollar wherever it might be."

I fail to see what was offensive about Bush's comments. Seems like a perfectly legitimate point to me. If the Democrats are just going to respond with feigned outrage every time someone makes a point like this in the general election, that's just gonna get more and more off-putting. But it seems to be Obama's response to every criticism ever made against him.

drill sgt: Actually, Hillary is apparently outraged by Bush's comments now. I don't see why, given her positions. Looks like she's shifting into "support Barack Obama and forget all their disputes" mode. Maybe she's trying to demonstrate that she could be a good running mate.

agree or disagree with obama's "lets bring them to the bargaining table" comments (and i thought they were stupid, because of course any prospective administration, unless run by dick cheney, will bargain with the iranians), attacking domestic opponents in a speech to commemorate israel's founding is crass and unnecessary.

not to mention comparing domestic opponents to nazi appeasers, this from the president who once warned us to "disagree responsibly"

Your assignment is to detail all the differences between Europe of 1914 and Europe of today, that make that comparison totally facile. Better get moving, it will probably take you all weekend. (My oh my, but I'm tired of folks who think the assassination of the Archduke and his wife caused something to happen that otherwise never would have happened. Get a clue; too many of the parties were spoiling for a fight.)

And as far as Gen. Butler, I get the feeling that somehow people think that those on "the right" are obligated to agree 100% with everything he said and did. Nonsense; I'll say right here that Butler had a very distinguished career, but definitely went off the rails later in life, as Revenant helpfully points out.

exalted,

"any prospective administration... will bargain with the iranians"

Hey, as long as in so doing we're carrying out our versions of hudna and taqqiya, I've got no problem with bargaining.

You don't think conflict in the Balkans could pull in the rest of Europe? You might recall it happened in 1914.

Oh I recall precisely what happened in 1914 and unfortunately, it's not even a close comparison. The Kosovo conflict was an internal issue with Yugoslavia, unlike the assisnation of Archduke Ferdinand, there were no outside players.

Plus proximity is not the prime criterion for absorbing refugees. When Hungary quit preventing Easterners from crossing the Austrian border, refugees came from all over Communist Europe. Austria had to build resettlement camps to hold people from as far away as Poland and the Baltic countries. But they were just passing through; they mainly got resettled in Germany and points as far West as the UK.

Help me out here, what does that have to do with the Kosovo war? I'm sorry but there wasn't a single NATO member that was remotely threatened by Serbia or an influx of refugees. Invoking Article 4 as justification to bomb Serbia isn't thin, that's aneorexic.

Point being, Freder made the statement that Bush needed Congressional approval to attack Iran. Evidently your contention is that NATO can put together the flimsiest of reasoning which would justify such an attack.

Overall, we supplied 0.5% of their military or quasi-military equipment. 94% came from the Soviet bloc, China, or France. In an eerie coincidence, those three nations later became three of our four biggest opponents during the 2002-2003 attempt to gain UN backing for the invasion of Iraq.

Revenant said: "And now the punchline: he [Gen. Smedley Butler]was saying these [military isolationist] things in the 1930s, during the rise of Nazism, Fascism, and the Soviet empire. Oops."

I alas am not qualified to debate the finer points of WWII historical revisionism. I pretty much just know what everybody else knows -- that the rise of Adolf Hitler was due in large part to the humiliation and oppression of the German people through the Treaty of Versailles; and that the Soviet Union, which succeeded in murdering far more people in the gulags than Hitler ever did, was the big winner in WWII; and that the big losers of WWII were all the countries we let fall under the sway of Stalin at the end of the war. I'm also pretty sure that "we" didn't enter the war to stop the genocide of the Jews.

History is written by the victors. Wars are almost invariably fought over money. That of course doesn't mean I don't recognize that Hitler was a homicidal maniac, and of course doesn't mean that I'm a Holocaust denier. It just means that I'm not willing to blindly accept on faith everything our high school history books taught us, or the underlying assumption of Bush's speech -- namely, that "of course" we had to fight WWII, that we had no moral choice, that WWII was a "good" war.

I'm also pretty sure that if America minded its own business, and focused exclusively on national "defense," that we could make ourselves virtually impervious to invasion, and could reduce to almost nothing the incentives for other countries to even try to invade our shores. Wasn't that the point of Washington's Farewell Speech?

of course any prospective administration, unless run by dick cheney, will bargain with the iranians

The only President of the last 28 years to bargain with the Iranians was Ronald Reagan. Last I checked, the Left was still complaining about the arms-for-hostages deal.

What, exactly, is Obama planning to offer Iran as part of this "bargain"? They stop funding terrorism, quit trying to take over Iraq, and stop researching nukes and in exchange we will, what... restore trade and diplomatic relations? We've already said we'd do that. Iran's not interested.

What's this "bargain" going to involve, exactly, besides Obama promising to pussy out of Iraq with all possible speed and let the Iranians take over the place?

I alas am not qualified to debate the finer points of WWII historical revisionism.

You're certainly skilled at constructing straw man arguments, though, judging from the piles of nonsense in that post. What do the Jews have to do with anything I said?

Let me dig out the one statement that actually bad some bearing on what I'd written:

the rise of Adolf Hitler was due in large part to the humiliation and oppression of the German people through the Treaty of Versailles

First of all, that "humiliation and oppression" was imposed by European governments. American isolationism wouldn't have prevented it. Indeed, it would probably have been worse if we hadn't entered WW1 and had a say in the peace negotiations.

Secondly, it had already happened when Butler and the other isolationists were making their ill-advised recommendations.

And that, of course, is the problem you isolationists always ignore -- that history doesn't have a reset button. Retreating to within our own borders will not magically make the world as it would have been if we had been isolationist for the last 230 years. We'll still have lots of enemies. They'll just have a whole world to run riot in, growing stronger.

We, meanwhile, will have impoverished ourselves, first by forfeiting the trillions of dollars in American-owned foreign assets we will no longer have the capacity to protect, and secondly through the loss of international trade.

Oh, but I forgot. You think:

we could make ourselves virtually impervious to invasion

Nobody is worried about invasion. The real threat is terrorist or WMD attacks. If you remove the American ability to project force around the world -- which is exactly your stated plan -- then we no longer have any ability at all to deter such attacks, or even to retaliate against the people who launch them.

So Hoosierdaddy: Austria, which is not a member of NATO is then not and never was under it's protection through out the cold war? Calling a caucasian western european county not under the aegis of NATO and the US is picking nits.

Once nativism in Western European countries on the border with eastern europe began to fester they all but begged us to intervene.

People in Salzburg and Vienna began stating that they would refuse entry to any more refugees...which would have meant whole displaced peoples wandering the Enlightened Europe with no home.

Germany too began to fear the same, Are you following me Hoosierdaddy? All of western europe nearly shit themselves when the muslims began pouring out of Fmr. Yugo.

me: first hand account (in fact I got both sides since my roomate in Salzburg was from Serbia and her mother was in Belgrade when we started bombing)

you: history-lite and propaganda-lite media (who was going to report that latent nativism and fear of a diaspora of dusky foreigners is the only thing that pushed NATO countries into action and that most europeans are more bigoted than a character out of deliverance).

The mistake Slobo made was in trying to shoo the non-serbs out of the country into the west, had he just rounded them up and gassed/shot them, nobody would have given a shit.

Revenant said: "You're certainly skilled at constructing straw man arguments, though, judging from the piles of nonsense in that post. What do the Jews have to do with anything I said?"

Dude, get a hold of yourself. Think before you accuse others of making the straw man arguments to which you yourself are so prone, as evident in this last "reply."

You didn't say much in your previous post, other than to point out that Smedley Butler was advocating military isolationism in the 1930s, prior to WWII. Then you said "Oops." What does that mean? I had to assume it meant you think Butler's advocacy of isolationism was oh-so-obviously a big mistake, in light of subsequent events, etc. So, that's what I was responding to, with some general observations.

Did I say that you said that we entered WWII to stop the genocide of the Jews? No. So what's all these superfluous accusations about straw man arguments? There wasn't really an argument you made that I was responding to, other than your assumption that of course isolationism was wrong because, golly gee, look at the rise of fascism and Nazism (which Smedley was well aware of). Isn't mention of the Jewish Holocaust appropriate in that context?

So again you persist in your habit of taking the most uncharitable view of others' comments. I could care less whether you're charitable or not. It just makes your own comments dishonest and not worth taking seriously, because you habitually invent things that aren't there and respond to that, typically with a venom that provides an unflattering insight into your soul. Talk about straw man arguments.

"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage ... and then sit down and talk with them. If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."

So Hoosierdaddy: Austria, which is not a member of NATO is then not and never was under it's protection through out the cold war?

That's correct. Had Austria been attacked, the United States would have been under no obligation to assist it.

Of course, we may very well have assisted it anyway. It is even possible that we would have done so via NATO. But we would have been completely within our rights to say "eh, serves you right for that whole Hitler business" and stay home. :)

That's where Clinton lied; he said we were obligated to bomb Kosovo under the NATO treaty. That was bunk.

Revenant said: "And that, of course, is the problem you isolationists always ignore -- that history doesn't have a reset button."

We can't undo all of the mistakes of the past overnight, but we can certainly reverse directions and start on the path of undoing those mistakes, with all due conservatism, and avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future.

So again you persist in your habit of taking the most uncharitable view of others' comments.

You accuse me of historical revisionism for saying that pre-WW2 isolationists were wrong -- which has been the almost universally-held historical view for the last 67 years -- and then have the nerve to complain that I read *your* posts uncharitably?

Heh.

Anyway:

You didn't say much in your previous post, other than to point out that Smedley Butler was advocating military isolationism in the 1930s, prior to WWII. Then you said "Oops." What does that mean?

Revenant said: "You accuse me of historical revisionism for saying that pre-WW2 isolationists were wrong -- which has been the almost universally-held historical view for the last 67 years -- and then have the nerve to complain that I read *your* posts uncharitably?"

Dude, I'M the amateur historical revisionist. I wasn't accusing you of being one. I see this was all a big misunderstanding. Friends again?

I find it interesting that no one in media, posting here, etc. has commented on the reaction to the speech in the Knesset by Pres. Bush. After all, they were his true audience. His political career effectively over, he doesn't need to woo Jewish voters by supporting Israel. His comments on appeasement were intended for his audience who lost greatly in the appeasement of Hitler, and have gained nothing by every concession they have given the Palastinians. You can negotiate with a nation, such as Israel did with Egypt and Jordan. You cannot negotiate with terrorist zealots such as Hezbullah and Hamas, or the Iranian government which is just a Rolls Royce version of fanatics. They want nothing from us and never will, other than our humiliation and defeat. To speak with national adversaries is a good thing, since the adverserial relationship arises over the intersection of interests and compromise is possible. Fanatics are not worth the time. Anyone who believes otherwise has his/her eyes closed.

So Hoosierdaddy: Austria, which is not a member of NATO is then not and never was under it's protection through out the cold war?

Um, no or at least not with respect to invoking Article 4 of the NATO charter.

Calling a caucasian western european county not under the aegis of NATO and the US is picking nits.

No its called the NATO charter which specifically lays out the conditions in which NATO can use military force. An attack on a NATO member means all members will act in its defense. If Sweden was attacked, NATO has no obligations under its charter to do a damn thing.

Once nativism in Western European countries on the border with eastern europe began to fester they all but begged us to intervene.

Oh bullshit. Please show me a single instance where there were demonstrations or any elected officials in Europe anywhere begging for NATO to intervene in Serbia.

vnjagvet said: "If you want corroboration from one of the high officials of the vanquished Nazis, read Albert Speer's Inside The Third Reich. If anything, it reinforces the proposition that the attempted appeasement of Hitler was folly."

I hesitate to serve up any additional ammunition to Revenant on a silver platter, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't have half the detailed historical knowledge of those who are wont to debate history and recent current events on posts like these. I'm a simple man. I know that war is horrible. It's the closest we come to hell on earth. Gen. Smedley was very good at describing the human cost of war, and as a warrior and leader of men in battle he had first hand knowledge of such things. All my presumptions are against war, as they should be for all human beings. So-called "just war" theory has taken a wrong turn when, in recognizing the complexity of international affairs and that such things go on far over the heads of ordinary Americans and of those who might be "ordered" to serve in war, it has given the benefit of the doubt to the State. I, on the other hand, see no reason for giving such benefit of the doubt to our political "leaders." I see precious little evidence that our political "leaders" really have the interests of ordinary Americans at heart. We should therefore trust instead first and foremost our senses and our common sense, which reveals to us that war is hardly ever justifiable.

Your assignment is to detail all the differences between Europe of 1914 and Europe of today

The major difference of course is NATO, in which the US and Canada pretend they give two shits about what happens in Europe. And why is there NATO? Because in two wars in a row the US was called in to help the "good" guys long after the shit had hit the fan.

Like kids playing with matches who managed to set the garage on fire, Europe was clearly unable to manage their own affairs. Thus in NATO, the U.S. set up a fire station in the midst of the where-everything-turns-to-shit land.

Now the European cast of characters is ever changing. Our staunch ally during WWII becomes our deadly enemy. Our deadly enemies become our staunch allies. The purpose of NATO is to keep the little fires from burning down first the garage and then the neighborhood. The exact ownership of the garage doesn't matter when the whole block is in danger of burning down. NATO members felt their security was threatened and we came to their aid under our treaty obligation.

Unlike in Iraq we sent no ground troops in, but that's a different story.

Reflect that Poland wasn't in the club either when England and France told Hitler it was OK for him to take it over. In fact Poland has yet to join NATO.

Hoosierdaddy: Germany, France, Britain (kinda I guess), Belgium, et al could not countenance the idea of taking in hundreds of thousands if not millions of displaced yugoslavians. Nato members (and Austria) made it clear to the US that an intervention was mandatory

Mandatory or else... what, exactly? Can we tell them it is "mandatory" that NATO do something about the millions of Mexicans flooding the United States? :)

Can we tell them it is "mandatory" that NATO do something about the millions of Mexicans flooding the United States? :)

I think the helping arrow only points from west to east. Besides the Mexican culture is very compatible with ours: they work hard, they take care of their families, and they go to church when they can.

Revenant said: "There are many things which are worse than war. That's why we fight wars in the first place; to avoid those things."

Yes, being conquered or enslaved or oppressed on your own land is worse. Ain't gonna happen to us on American soil in the foreseeable future, though. I approve of the spirit of the American Revolution, of our right to throw off (even by violent means if necessary)oppressive government, even if the oppressions visited upon us by England at that time seem paltry in comparison to what the U.S. government visits on us now. Just as the British government was our problem, the Nazis were primarily the problem of the Germans (and of the British, the Poles, the French, the Soviets, etc.).

On the other hand, I don't think protecting the private property of Americans overseas is worth the drastic price of war. I've always opposed protectionism (through tariffs, etc.) as a matter of principle, but it's occurred to me that if the government stopped making us taxpayers responsible for footing the bills for protecting American private business overseas, the added costs of doing business overseas might approximate (on a more efficient and justifiable basis) the incentives politicians have from time to time proposed to encourage American businesses to keep their operations and workforce stateside. Not that I've necessarily thought this idea through, though.

"Calling a caucasian western european county not under the aegis of NATO and the US is picking nits."

Um, no, it isn't. This is no longer the Cold War, when Austria was forced to remain legally neutral as part of the US-Soviet balance of power. If and when Austria wishes to be under the aegis of NATO and the United States, it can apply for NATO membership or approach the U.S. about a bilateral alliance.

Until Austria does so, it is clear that Austria does not want to be a NATO member and is unwilling to shoulder the responsibilities thereof. That's fine, but it should not be allowed to use its EU membership then to indirectly call upon the benefits of NATO membership.

In short, let 'em join or go to hell. And the same to Ireland, Sweden, and Finland.

By the way, when you denounce negotiating with terrorists in front of the Knesset, the context makes it clear you're denouncing negotiating with anti-Israel terrorists. The prominent political figure Bush was taking a shot at was former president Jimmy Carter, who met with Hamas last month. And Bush was making the same criticism of Carter that Obama's own campaign made.

Don't believe me? Let's quote the Obama campaign:

"Sen. Obama does not agree with President Carter's decision to go forward with this meeting because he does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements."

This wasn't about Obama until Obama's campaign decided it was about Obama. The campaign could have simply said, "We agree with President Bush's remarks on negotiating with terrorists; we said the same thing when President Carter met with Hamas."

Instead, they declared that it was a "false attack" on Obama, putting the whole thing into "protest too much" territory.

if the government stopped making us taxpayers responsible for footing the bills for protecting American private business overseas

They already do.

Slightly over one quarter of the federal budget goes to things that potentially benefit American business -- science, technology, energy, transportation, law enforcement, foreign affairs, and defense. Obviously all of those things provide benefits to normal Americans too.

Corporations supply 15% of the federal budget via the corporate income tax. So right out of the gate they're paying for 60% all the programs that have any benefit to them. The rest of us pay for the other 40%, which is a pretty good deal considering we get a lot more than 40% of the benefit.

Plus, of course, it isn't really us paying for that. The wealthiest income quintile, i.e. the one that owns most of the corporate stock, pays virtually all of the income tax (and don't start with me about payroll taxes -- those fund medicare and social security, which neither the rich nor corporations want or need). So all things considered, the corporations and their owners are already paying their own way, plus a lot of other people's way.

Then there's the GDP angle. 13% of our GDP comes from what you call "overseas business". We spend 5% of our GDP on defense and foreign affairs. Even if you assume that the military has no purpose other than supporting overseas business, that's still a 260% return on investment. Let me simplify that for you: you'd be poorer if it wasn't for the overseas business you condemn.

There is a popular sentiment on both the left and the Buchananite right that businesses are leeches on American society. The reality is that American society are leeches on American business. We already screw domestic corporations a lot harder than most other civilized nations do, which is why so many of them give up and move overseas. You can't keep killing the geese that lay the golden eggs.

Hoosier Daddy said... I'm not inclined to research exactly what we gave Saddam

Oh I see. Then again you simply state that we sold/gave them arms but don't actually have any evidence to support the claim.

Does wonders for your credibility.

ha. good one. this is a fact, and not exactly a secret. interesting that you are somehow unaware of it.

and revenant - you need to get a clue if you think no administration has talked with the iranians since reagan. and nice try to equivocate reagan's illegal arms sales to the diplomacy advocated by obama (or any non-flunky).

Corporations supply 15% of the federal budget via the corporate income tax. So right out of the gate they're paying for 60% all the programs that have any benefit to them. The rest of us pay for the other 40%, which is a pretty good deal considering we get a lot more than 40% of the benefit.

what is this, a joke? who do you think owns the corporations? taxpayers, you doofus

Just to put some numbers to what Revenant said, "We already screw domestic corporations a lot harder than most other civilized nations do,"

Ahh, the amazing "facts" you can create out of thin air by focusing on one sliver of the tax burden. It is downright dishonest to focus on corporate income taxes and say the U.S. taxes its corporations at a higher rate. Most developed countries have a Value Added Tax (in Europe it is in the range of 15 to 20%) that is paid by corporations during all stages of production--not just at the retail level.

Most developed countries have a Value Added Tax (in Europe it is in the range of 15 to 20%) that is paid by corporations during all stages of production--not just at the retail level.

The VAT applies to anything sold in the nation in question; it only applies to "all stages of production" in which a transaction takes place. It isn't a tax on corporations; it is a tax on sales. American companies have to pay the tax too, if they want to sell things in Europe; conversely, European companies DON'T pay the tax when selling things in other countries.

The American corporate income tax, however, gets levied against all corporate income -- if an American car company builds a car in Mexico with Chinese parts and then sells it to a guy in Brazil, the US government demands a cut.

"Just a coincidence, I am sure, that the biggest suppliers to Iraq all opposed liberating Iraq."

Typical war-mongering revisionism. Li'l Butch and Big DICK did not lie us into war by selling it as a war to "liberate the Iraqis," but as a war to protect ourselves agin' the nukular bombs and clouds of mustard gas (sic) that Hussein was only minutes away from launching against us.

Of course, the one argument would have been as much a lie as the one they used; we have liberated no one, but have only invaded a sovereign nation, overthrown and killed its head, smashed the country's physical and social infrastructure, and have installed ourselves as imperial troops of occupation. Why wouldn't Iraqis--who have seen their neighbors and family members rousted out of bed and hauled off to jail, or worse, seen them killed by American bullets or bombs--want to retaliate against those they see (rightly) as illegal occupiers? Would American citizens who tried their best to kill soldiers of an occupying foreign army in our land be "terrorists," or would they be justified in trying to repel the invaders?

As for Li'l Butch' typically hate-mongering name-calling, since when is a willingness to talk with foreign nations "appeasement?" I thought we had a whole diplomatic corps whose mission was to try to forestall hostilities or outright warfare with adversarial nations from erupting by, you know, talking first.

Oh, yes, we all know they threw in the obligatory references to "free(ing) (Iraq's) people" simply to pad their list of reasons why we should violate international law and mount a war of aggression against Iraq. But we also all remember that the primary points they pounded home over and over--to the point of having Colin Powell appear before the UN to present a bogus parade of "evidence" showing Hussein's lethal weapons stores, so-called--were that Hussein had WMD, had WMD, had WMD, "there could be no doubt," we had "bullet proof" evidence, and that if we waited for the "smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud" it would be too late...as we would, by then, have been annihilated, was the clear implication of their fear-mongering.

No, the war was sold as a desperate gambit to save our lives, to save our nation, from the certain apocalypse pending from Hussein's WMD.

Oh, yes, we all know they threw in the obligatory references to "free(ing) (Iraq's) people" simply to pad their list of reasons

You know it now, sure, because I pointed it out to you. A few hours ago you were claiming it was never one of the reasons given for the invasion.

You're certainly correct that WMDs were cited as a much more important reason for the invasion, though. But Bush never said, as you claimed, that Iraq would nuke us any minute; he quite plainly stated that Iraq didn't have nukes yet, but that we shouldn't wait until they did. That was, and is, a sensible approach to take to nuclear proliferation among enemy states.

I am convinced that those for whom the only legitimate reason to invade Iraq was WMD only heard the arguments about WMD. They simply didn't hear any other arguments because they dismissed the other arguments.

Claiming that WMD was the only argument anyone else cared about is projecting an awful lot on no evidence.

Saddam was a source of extreme regional upset and the plight of 650,000 dead Iraqi children under sanctions a stated cause of OBL.

I realize that many people see myopia as a virtue and that the very same people who wailed and cried over the horror inflicted on Iraq and the world wide blame of the US for being meanies are the very same people who so self-righteously insist that sanctions were working just fine, thank you!

Even without the magic-bullet of WMD there were numerous compelling reasons to go into Iraq no matter how much we'd much rather not. Not everyone will agree with those reasons but they are there and, frankly, I think we can't even imagine where we'd be now if we hadn't gone.

Perhaps Saddam would have developed his chemical weapons again... or succeeded in totally wiping out Marsh Arabs or Kurds... as we'd just forget about the sanctions out of fatigue... or as the "dead Iraqi children" numbers rose past 650,000 and up to millions of dead babies all the fault of the US because we kept to those sanctions that were "working."

That someone dismisses the arguments that don't move them personally is irrelevant to the arguments made.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq a common argument by liberals is that we ought to address root causes and social justice because the answer to the question of "why do they hate us" or "why do terrorists turn to violence" was always "because they are oppressed."

Iraq, for better or worse, for mistakes and successes, was an attempt to address root causes, to establish a responsive democracy in the place most accustomed to secular rule and smack in the middle of the "problem." It *is* in our interest if oppressive tyrants, and Saddam qualified many times over, subjugate their own people if those people can only find hope in focusing on an external enemy and blow stuff, and themselves, up over it.

But when it comes to addressing root causes suddenly "those people" are not capable of democracy and not capable of being anything but savages, and if the banishing of genocide and rape rooms, oppression and injustice isn't accomplished by an application of happy fairy dust then who needs it.

I can't believe anyone can still swallow--or ever did--the obvious lies that America was concerned with "root causes" and with the poor oppressed Iraqi people. We didn't give a damn about them when Saddam was murdering them, and we don't give a damn about them now that we're murdering them (and they're murdering each other, a state of affairs facilitated by our destruction of their society).

We went into Iraq to establish American domination in the region and to secure control of the flow of oil. As with nearly every war ever fought, it was a war of greed, a war to obtain power, land and resources. It was a war to fatten ourselves.

If we just wanted oil we could have bought it. Saddam certainly wanted to sell it.

How did war get us any oil?

Recognizing that supporting dictators and tyrants on the theory of stability simply doesn't result in stability was a good step forward. For our country. It never worked. There is no Historical president for gaining stability through supporting tyrants. Tyrannies are not stable. And sure, yes, this impacts commerce and transportation and the global economy.

Again... just because you don't understand this nor care what happens to people around the world or even recognize that what happens to them does impact our lives and our safety isn't particularly relevant.

I can't believe anyone can still swallow--or ever did--the obvious lies that America was concerned with "root causes" and with the poor oppressed Iraqi people. We didn't give a damn about them when Saddam was murdering them

The majority of Americans supported the war, and we had all sorts of reasons for doing so. A desire to replace that fascist regime in Iraq with a democratic one was one of those reasons for most of us. The year-long political argument during the run-up to the war is pretty much all logged on Google. You can go back and read the arguments people presented for why they backed the war, and it wasn't anywhere remotely as simplistic as you foolishly assume it to have been.

Maybe you just weren't old enough to follow the debates at the time? It was five years ago, after all.

We went into Iraq to establish American domination in the region and to secure control of the flow of oil.

That's just silly. Secure from what? Hussein was perfectly willing to pump and sell all the oil he could. As for "establishing American domination in the region", we already did that in 1991.

Too funny. And telling. A Marine recruiting station is bombed, the public immediately thinks its either liberals or terrorists. Bush speaks to the dangers of appeasement, Obama assumes he's the target.

We went into Iraq to establish American domination in the region and to secure control of the flow of oil. As with nearly every war ever fought, it was a war of greed, a war to obtain power, land and resources. It was a war to fatten ourselves.

Robert, I'm done killing off these constant false assertions unsupported by fact. You are a typical lefty idiot - ignorant and unashamed.